INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI: 10.1002/er.3024

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Thermoeconomic analysis of ground-source heat pump systems

Ho-Young Kwak1,*,, Yungpil You2, Si-Doek Oh2 and Ha-Na Jang3
1 2

Mechanical Engineering Department, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea Blue Economy Strategy Institute Co., Ltd., Guro-Gu, Seoul 152-838, Korea 3 Korea Energy Management Corporation, Yongin-Si, 448-994, Korea

SUMMARY
A thermoeconomic analysis of a ground-source heat pump (GSHP) system with a vertical or horizontal ground heat exchanger, a type of heat delivery system, was performed using the modied productive structure analysis method. In this analysis, the unit cost of geothermal heat delivered to a room using GSHP system was estimated. The unit cost of heat delivered was calculated to be $0.063/kWh for input of electricity with a unit cost of $0.140/kWh for a GSHP with a coefcient of performance (COP) of 3.27. Exergy destruction and monetary losses due to the irreversibility that occurs at each component of the system were also estimated. The unit cost of heat was found to be inversely proportional to the COP of the heat pump and proportional to the electricity input. The greatest monetary loss occurs in the geothermal heat exchanger in which considerable mass of brine ows in long pipes and in the fan-coil unit which features a complex conguration of pipes in the air passages, respectively. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS ground source; heat pump; thermoeconomic analysis Correspondence *Ho-Young Kwak, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea. E-mail: kwakhy@cau.ac.kr Received 2 December 2012; Revised 11 January 2013; Accepted 12 January 2013

1. INTRODUCTION
Ground-source heat pump (GSHP) systems have several advantages over air-source heat pumps. They consume less energy and uses smaller amount of refrigerant than conventional electric heat pump systems. Another merit is that geothermal heat sources are more stable and benign than the air sources. For example, in Korea, the average outdoor temperature in January is 0.7 C, while the average ground temperature available in GSHP is about 10 C. The GSHP systems have been successfully utilized for heating in many countries [16] and have enjoyed annual growth rate of 10% in recent years [2,3,7]. Approximately 12 billion Korean Won (KRW) in subsidies was disbursed to geothermal facilities, yielding a total capacity of 254 MW up to 2011 in Korea [8]. Hepbasli and Akdemir [9] performed an experiment on a vertical GSHP system for residential heating and conducted an exergy analysis on the system based on their observed data. One of their ndings is that the highest irreversibility occurs in the motorcompressor assembly. A thorough thermodynamics analysis of a GSHP system [9] for district heating was performed by Hepbasli [10]. An
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

exergy analysis of geothermal district heating systems for building applications was performed by Ozgener et al. [11]. One of their ndings is that the highest irreversibility occurs in the fan-coil unit, followed by the compressor, condenser, capillary tube and evaporator. Energy and exergy analyses on a horizontal ground-source heat exchanger were performed by Esen et al. [12]. They show that the energy and exergy efciencies of the system increase when increasing the heat source (ground) temperature and that the exergy efciency of the system decreases when increasing the reference environment temperature. A theoretical study on the performance of an integrated ground-source heat pump (GSHP) system was performed by Fan et al. [13]. They investigated the inefcient recovery of soil temperature due to the imbalance load between winter and summer by considering the coupled heat conduction and ground water advection on the heat transfer between the geothermal heat exchanger and its surrounding soil. An exergy analysis of a ground heat pump system for both building heating and cooling modes was performed by Bi et al. [14]. In their study, the exergy loss of the system for the heating mode was greater than that for the cooling mode. An exergy analysis of a horizontal GSHP system operated

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

in a low-energy home was performed by Ally et al. [15]. They found that exergy destruction follows the order of compressorrefrigerator-to-air heat exchangerbrine heat exchangerexpansion valve and the entropy production in the connecting lines is negligible. A study on the operating strategy for a geothermal step utilization heating system was recently performed by Zheng et al. [6]. Compared with the coal-red heating case, 75.1% of the standard coal equivalent energy was found to be saved. A long-term operation test on a GSHP designed for space heating and cooling was performed by Hamada et al. [16] and by Michopoulos et al. [17]. The average coefcient of performance (COP) for space heating was approximately 3.9, and 23% energy reduction was obtained compared with the energy consumed by a typical air conditioning system [16]. Additionally, the energy demand of a GSHP system was found to be signicantly lower than that of a conventional heating and cooling system [17]. For a performance comparison test between an air-source and a GSHP [1], an annual improvement of 14% in COPs was achieved by GSHP. Recent experiments on GSHP performed in Korea indicated that the COPs which depend on the secondary uid ow rate in the heat exchanger achieved at an compressor speed of 60 Hz is approximately 5.0 in the cooling mode and 3.9 in the heating mode [18]. An economic analysis of a horizontal GSHP system using an annualized life cycle method was performed by Esen et al. [19]. In their study, the GSHP system was shown to have economic advantages over conventional heating by fossil fuels and direct electric resistance heating. Ozgener et al. [20] performed a parametric study on an exergoeconomic analysis of a GSHP system. They developed a correlation between the ratio of the exergy loss to capital cost and reference state temperature. An exergoeconomic analysis of a geothermal district heating system for buildings was performed by Oktay and Dincer [21]. In their study, the overall thermal costs were found to decrease under higher load conditions, which results in more cost-effective energy systems for buildings. The energetic, exergetic and exergoeconomic aspects of a geothermal district heating system were reviewed by Hepbasli [22]. Thermoeconomics which combines thermodynamic laws with economic principles is a powerful tool used to estimate the unit cost of products and quantify the monetary loss due to the irreversibility that occurs in each component of thermal systems. To date, however, a detailed thermoeconomic analysis of a GSHP system has not been performed. In this study, such analysis based on the exact balances of exergy for the components of a GSHP system as well as the overall system was performed using the modied structure analysis method [23].

which was operated at Izmar (latitude 38.24 N, longitude 27.50 E), Turkey. The other one is GSHP with horizontal type of ground heat exchanger, which was operated in Oak Ridge (latitude 36.0 N, longitude 84.15 W), Tennessee, USA. Oak Ridge is hotter in summer and colder in winter compared to the weather conditions in Izmar. Both sites are located at similar latitude as Seoul (latitude 37.33 N, longitude 126.58 E), Korea. A schematic diagram of a GSHP system, denoted GSHPa in heating mode, is shown in Figure 1. The main components of the GSHPa system include compressor, condenser, evaporator, ground heat exchanger and fan-coil unit. In this study, experimental data from Hepbasli and Aldermir [9] and Ally et al. [15] were used. Hepbasli and Aldermir performed careful and thorough experiment on a GSHP system designed to heat room measuring 65 m2. Property data including the mass ow rates at each state denoted as a number shown in Figure 1 are displayed in Table I. The working uid of the main line of the refrigeration was R-12, and water and a water and anti-freezer mixture were used as the working uids in the fan-coil unit and ground heat exchanger, respectively. All calculations were performed based on these data shown in Table I. The nominal value of the electricity input to the compressor was 1.04 kW, and the heat input to the room was 3.40 kW. The heat gain from the geothermal heat exchanger was 2.36 kW. However, in this study, the heat input to the room was modied to satisfy the exergy-balance equations for the components as well as the overall system. Ally et al. [15] tested a horizontal GSHP system using an ordinary vapor compression refrigeration system without water circulation in the fan-coil unit and in condenser designed to heat and cool a two-storey building with a total conditioned space of 345 m2 for a year. The GSHP system denoted GSHPb used polyethylene tubing with ID of 1.9 cm and a total length of 559 m. The thermostat set point temperatures were 21.67 C (71  F) for heating and 24.44 C (76  F) for cooling. The working uid of the

2. SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION
In this study, experimental data from two GSHPs having different types of ground heat exchanger were used. One is GSHP with vertical type of ground heat exchanger,
Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the GSHP system in the heating mode.

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

Table I. Property values and exergy values in various states of the GSHP system in heating mode (From reference 9). State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T( C) 3.0 106.25 60.0 1.15 41.31 37.32 6.8 8.0 P(kPa) 480 2600 2600 480 ------------h(kJ/kg) 252.48 307.67 126.97 126.97 172.84 152.65 28.45 33.47 s(kJ/kgK) 0.9395 0.9691 0.4393 0.4780 0.5893 0.5358 0.1029 0.1208 _ kg=s m 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.204 0.204 0.470 0.470 e(kJ/kg) 43.8363 90.2039 67.4634 55.9250 1.7817 1.0386 2.4121 2.0960

mainline of the refrigeration was R-410a. The anti-freeze solution used was a mixture of 20% propylene glycol and 80% water. Property data obtained at the points corresponding to those shown in Figure 1 are shown in Table II for the heating case and in Table III for the cooling case. The GSHPb system has a capacity of 7.79 kW at full load and 6.23 kW at part load, with COPs of 5.88 and 7.6, respectively, in cooling mode and a capacity of 5.81 kW at full load and 4.83 kW at part load, with COPs of 4.0 and 4.6, respectively, in heating mode.

the rst and second laws of thermodynamics [24]. Including the exergy losses due to heat transfer through the non-adiabatic components, and without decomposing the material stream into thermal and mechanical exergy streams, the general exergy-balance equation may be written as [25] X X _ CHE _x _ x E E E x
outlet X X _i _i Q _ c:v =To E _W To S S x inlet inlet outlet

(1)

3. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
3.1. Exergy-balance and cost-balance equations A general exergy-balance equation that can be applied to any component of thermal systems may be formulated by utilizing

The third term in Eq. (1) is called the neg-entropy which represents the negative value of the rate of lost work due to entropy generation, which can be obtained from the second law of thermodynamics. The term _ CHE E in Eq. (1) denotes the rate of exergy ow of fuel x _ cv in the third term denotes in thermal systems, and Q heat transfer interaction between a component and the

Table II. Property values and exergy values in various states of the GSHPb system in heating mode (From reference 15). State 1 2 2 3 4 1 T( C) 5.94 67.78 63.33 32.56 0.67 3.33 P(kPa) 675.7 2095 2092.6 2071 684.0 676.5 h(kJ/kg) 286.33 326.57 321.3 111.1 111.1 283.5 s(kJ/kgK) 1.06581 1.09674 1.08135 0.40620 0.42219 1.05560 _ kg=s m 0.02297 0.02297 0.02297 0.02297 0.02297 0.02297

Note that 2-2 is the line from the compressor to the refrigerant-air HX and 1-1 is the line from the brine HX to the compressor.

Table III. Property values and exergy values in various states of the GSHPb system in cooling mode (From reference 15). State 1 2 2 3 4 1 T( C) 61.56 15.28 13.00 9.56 35.39 59.61 P(kPa) 2207 954.2 955 974 2184 2206 h(kJ/kg) 317.15 288.55 286.2 116.1 116.1 314.7 s(kJ/kgK) 1.06436 1.04418 1.03603 0.43293 0.42220 1.05703 _ kg=s m 0.03166 0.03166 0.03166 0.03166 0.03166 0.03166

Note that 1-1 is the line from the compressor to the brine HX and 2-2 is the line from the refrigerant-air HX to the compressor.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

environment, which can be obtained from the rst law of thermodynamics. _ cv Q X

in

_ k =3600d _ k fk C Z

(6)

_i H

X
out

_ cv _iW H

(2)

_ cv for each In this study, however, the quantity Q component, which is usually not measured, was obtained to satisfy the corresponding exergy-balance equation with the known value of the entropy ow rate inlet and outlet. Assigning a unit exergy cost to every exergy stream, the cost-balance equation corresponding to the exergy-balance equation for any component in a thermal system may be written as _ CHE E C0 x X X _ x;i _ x;i E E C
inlet outlet

The maintenance cost is taken into consideration through the factor; fk. It is noted that the operating hours of thermal systems is largely dependent on the energy demand patterns of buildings [30]. 3.3. Exergy-balance equations for the GSHP system The exergy-balance equations obtained using Eq. (1) for each component in the GSHP system shown in Figure 1 are as follows. Compressor r W _r _ _ _r _r E x;1 E x;2 To S1 S2 Qcomp =To Ex;comp Condenser _r _ wt _ wt _r E x;2 E x;3 E x;6 E x;5 r _r S _ wt S _ wt Q _ S _ con =To 0 To S 2 3 6 5 Throttle valve r _r _ _r _r E x;3 E x;4 To S3 S4 0 Evaporator _r _ wa _ wa _r E x;4 E x;1 E x;8 E x;7 r _r S _ wa S _ wa Q _ S _ evap =To 0 To S 4 1 8 7 Fan-coil unit _ wt _ wt _a _a E x;5 E x;6 E x;9 E x;10 wt _ wt S _a S _a Q _ S _ fc =To 0 To S 5 6 9 10 Ground heat exchanger h i  _H _ wa _ wa (12) E x;7 E x;8 Qgh 1 To =Tsoil h i _ wa Q _ wa S _ H To =Tsoil 0 To S 7 8 gh Room (11) (10) (9) (8) (7)

X X _i _j Q _ cv =ToCs Z _k E _W T0 S S x CW ;
inlet outlet

(3) _ k includes all nancial charges associated The term, Z with owning and operating the k-th component in the thermal system. We call the thermoeconomic analysis based on Eq. (1) and (3) the modied productive structure analysis (MOPSA) method [25] because the cost-balance equation in Eq. (3) yields the productive structure of thermal systems, as suggested and developed by Lozano and Valero [26] and Torres et al. [27]. MOPSA has proved to be very useful in the exergy and thermoeconomic analysis of large and complex thermal systems such as a geothermal district heating system for buildings [21] and a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor coupled to a steam methane reforming plant [28]. 3. 2. Levelized cost of system components All costs due to owning and operating a plant depend on the type of nancing, the required capital, the expected life of components and the utilization hours of the system. The annualized (levelized) cost method of Moran [29] was used to estimate the capital cost of components in this study. The amortization cost for a particular plant component may be written as PW Ci Sn PWF i; n (4)

The present worth of the component is converted to annualized cost by using the capital recovery factor CRF (i, n): _ =year PW CRF i; n C (5)

h i  _H _a _a E x;10 E x;9 Qroom 1 To =Tair h i _a Q _a S _ H To =Tair 0 To S 10 9 room (13) In the above equations, the superscripts; r, wt, wa and a denote the uid stream of the refrigerant, water, water/antifreezer and air, respectively, and W and H denote work and heat, respectively. The amount of heat transferred to environment surrounding each component, whose values

Dividing the levelized cost by annual operating hours d, we obtain the following capital cost rate of the kth component of the thermal system.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

are shown in Table II, was obtained to satisfy the corresponding exergy-balance equation. The amount of heat transferred to the environment was included in the entropy generation term in the exergy-balance equation, as clearly shown in Eq. (7), (8), (10) and (11). The entropy generation due to the heat transfer between ow streams [31] in the condenser, evaporator and the fan-coil unit was calculated to be negligibly small. In Eq. (12) and (13), the rst bracket represents exergy, and the second bracket represents the negative value of the entropy generation, the neg-entropy. However, the term representing unavailable work in the rst bracket, _H Q gh To =Tsoil , and the irreversibility term in the second _ H To =Tsoil , which are associated with the heat bracket, Q
gh

wt _ wt _ _H _ _ wt _ wt E x;5 E x;6 To S5 S6 Qfc =To Qroom 0 (16) Adding Eq. (7), (14) and (15), we have the following equation. wt wt _ _ _ _ _ _ wt _ wt E x;6 E x;5 To S6 S5 Qcomp Qcon Qevap =To _H _W Q gh E x;com Adding Eq. (16) and (17), it is also determined that _ con Q _ evap Q _ fc Q _H Q _H E _ comp Q _W To Q room gh x;com (18) If the rst term in Eq. (18) vanishes, Eq. (18) becomes the exergy-balance equation for the overall system. By comparing Eq. (16) with (17), one can nd that the fan-coil unit acts as a boundary component. 3.4. Cost-balance equations for the GSHP system By assigning a unit cost to every exergy stream of the refrigerant (Cr), water (Cwt), neg-entropy (Cs), heat (CH) and work (CW), the cost-balance equations corresponding to the exergy-balance equations, i.e., Eq. (7), (14), (15) and (16), are as follows. Compressor r _r _ _ _r _ Er x;1 E x;2 Cr To S1 S2 Qcomp Cs _ comp Z _W E x;comp CW (19)

(17)

transfer process described by Eq. (12), completely cancel each other out such that Eq. (12) may be written as   wa _ wa Q _ _H _ wa _ wa E x;7 E x;8 To S7 S8 gh 0 (12)

wa _ wa is the irreversibility _ S In Eq. (12), the term To S 9 7 that occurs in the pipe line in the ground heat exchanger, _ H is the rate of heat deposition to the and the term Q gh ground. The same applies to the exergy-balance equation for the room shown in Eq. (13), which can be rewritten as a _a _ _H _a _a E x;10 E x;9 To S10 S9 Qroom 0 (13)

a _ a is the irreversibility _ S In Eq. (13), the term To S 9 10 that occurs during the heat exchange between the water _ H is stream and air in the fan-coil unit, and the term Q room the rate of heat delivery to the room. Thus, the deposition of heat into the ground and the heat transferred to room are hardly considered to be dissipated to the environment. For such heat delivery system, it may be reasonable that the delivered heat rather than its exergy is contained in the exergy-balance equation. Note that Eq. (12) and (13) can be obtained directly from Eq. (1). The exergy-balance equation for the throttle valve indicates that all of the exergy of the refrigerant is dissipated such that the condenser and throttle valve may be considered a single component. The corresponding exergybalance equation can be obtained by substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (8), yielding _r _r _ wt _ wt E x;2 E x;4 E x;6 E x;5 r _r S _ wt S _ wt Q _ S _ con =To 0 To S 2 4 6 5 (14) By substituting Eq. (12) and (13) into Eq. (10) and (11), respectively, the exergy-balance equations for the evaporator and fan-coil unit reduce to r _r _ _ _H _r _r E x;4 E x;1 To S4 S1 Qevap =To Qgh 0 (15)

With the cost ow rate for each exergy stream, the above cost-balance equation can be written as _sZ _W _r C _ comp C C Condenser and throttle valve     r wt wt _ _ _ _r E E E C E r x;2 x;4 x;6 x;5 Cwt (20) (19)

r _a S _ wt S _ wt Q _ S _ con Cs To S 2 4 6 5 _ con 0 Z Evaporator   r _r _ _ _r _r E x;4 E x;1 Cr To S4 S1 Qevap Cs _ _ QH gh 0 Z gh Z evap 0 Fan-coil unit

Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

(21)

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

  wt _ wt _ _H _ wt _ _ wt E x;5 E x;6 Cwt To S5 S6 Cs Qroom CH Z fc 0 (22) We now have the necessary cost-balance equations to calculate the unit cost of all exergies (Cr and Cwt), neg-entropy (Cs) and a product, heat (CH) by input of electricity (CW). The overall cost-balance equation for the GSHP system can be obtained by summing Eq. (19) to (22); _ H CH Q boun X _k E _W Z x CW (23)

In the above equation, the heat gain obtained from the ground heat exchanger is not included because its cost is null as conrmed in Eq. (21). Rewriting Eq. (23), we have X " # _k Z CW CH 1 _W b CW E x;comp

(24)

where b is the COP of the GSHP system. The same form can be obtained for a power system with a single product of electricity [29]; X # " _k Z Co 1 CW CHE _x  Co E

(25)

where Z is the thermal efciency of the plant and Co is the unit cost of fuel.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

With the property values obtained at each point in the GSHSa system, which are presented in Table I, the net ow rates of the various exergies crossing the boundary of each component were calculated as shown in Table IV. The exergy value at point 7 is higher than that at point 8 because the exergy becomes higher when it is away from the dead state, the ambient state [32]. A positive exergy value indicates the exergy ow rate of a product while a

negative exergy value represents the exergy ow rate of a resource or fuel. The entropy generated in each component acts as a product in the exergy-balance equation. Each line in Table IV represents the exergy-balance Eq. (7) to (13). The sum of the exergy ow rates and lost work rate for each component completely vanishes; the zero sum indicates that perfect exergy balances are satised. The lines for the ground heat exchanger and the fan-coil unit/ room represent the mixed balance of the energy and exergy. The last line shows the energy balance for the overall system given in Eq. (18). The amount of heat transferred to each component, which is accounted for in the entropy production, was determined to satisfy the corresponding exergy-balance equation. Moreover, the heat transfer term in the room was introduced to satisfy the exergy balance for the overall system such that the sum of all heat transferred through the GSHPa system vanishes, as conrmed in Eq. (18). In this sense, the room acts as a heat sink or as a boundary component. As a _ H is modied result, the heat transferred to the room Q room from 3.41 kW to 3.39 kW. Considerable entropy production occurs in the ground heat exchanger and in the fan-coil unit as conrmed by Eq. (12) and (13). This is because the long length of the pipe line and considerable mass ow rate (0.470 kg/s) of the water/anti-freezer mixture relative to that of the refrigerant (0.019 kg/s) induces a high pressure loss inside the pipe in the ground heat exchanger. The complex pipe congurations in the air passages, which hinder smooth air ow, produce a large amount of entropy generation in the fan-coil unit. It is noted that the entropy generated at each component of the GSHPa system is fully recovered in the room which acts as a system boundary such that the entropy generated in the fan-coil unit is taken to be negative, thus, the total lost work rate of the GSHPa system is 6.49 kW. The sum of columns, which represent the exergy ow rate of the refrigerant, water, water/antifreezer and air, also vanishes. A similar exergy analysis was performed for the GSHPb system based on the property values and exergy values obtained in January (heating mode) and in August (cooling mode). Using the property values at each point

Table IV. Exergy balances of each component in the GSHPa system in heating mode (Unit: kW). Water/antifreezer stream Heat ow in/out Work input rate 1.0376 Heat transfer ratea 0.0111 0.0277 0.0 0.0249 0.0002 0.0085 0.0

Component Compressor Condenser Throttle valve Evaporator Ground heat exchanger Fan-coil unit/room Total

Refrigerant 0.8810 0.4321 0.2192 0.2297

Water stream

Lost work rate 0.1566 0.2805 0.2192 0.0811 2.5081 3.2455 0.0

0.1516 0.1486 0.1486 0.1516 0.0

2.3595 3.3971 1.0376

0.0

0.0

1.0376

a The heat transfer rate which was used to calculate the lost work rate was obtained to satisfy the exergy-balance equation for each component.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

in the GSHPb system, which are displayed in Table II for the heating mode and Table III for the cooling mode, the net ow rate of the various exergies crossing the boundary of each component was calculated as shown in Tables V and VI, respectively. As expected, the room acts as a boundary component in heating mode and the ground acts as a boundary component in cooling mode, as conrmed in these tables. The total lost work rate in the GSHPb system is approximately 9.75 kW in heating mode and 12.27 kW in cooling mode. Table VII presents the initial investment, the annuities including the maintenance cost, and the corresponding monetary ow rates for each component of the GSHPa system. Currently, the installation cost of a GSHP system is $1400 per unit heating or cooling capacity in Korea; thus, the installation cost of the GSHPa system having a capacity of 3.13 kW is estimated to be about $4300. The levelized cost of the GSHP was calculated to be $0.0693/ h with an expected life of 25 years, an interest rate of 5% and salvage value of $430. The operating hours of the GSHP system, which is crucial in determining the levelized cost, were taken as 4400 h. The maintenance cost

was taken as 3% of the annual levelized cost of the system. In Table VIII, the initial investment, the annuities including the maintenance cost and the corresponding monetary ow rates for each component of the GSHPb system are given. The installation cost of the GSHPb system having capacity of 5 kW was taken as about $6300. The unit cost of heat delivered to the room from a ground source was estimated to be $0.063/kWh by solving the four cost-balance equations Eq. (19) to (22) with a unit cost of electricity of $0.140/kWh, which is slightly higher than the system marginal price (SMP) of $0.125/kWh in Korea, and the monetary ow rates of each component in the GSHPa system, which are shown in Table VII. The calculated unit cost of heat is cheaper than that of a gas-red heater in Korea ($0.080/kWh). The other exergy costs of material streams are Cr = $0.1668/kWh, Cwt = $0.692/kWh and Cs = $0.024/kWh. It is noted that the unit cost of heat CH can be obtained by Eq. (24) directly with known values of CW, b and the ratio of the monetary ow rate of nonfuel items to the monetary ow rate of input (electricity). The unit cost of heat of the GSHPa system depends on the operating hours such that the unit cost of

Table V. Exergy balances of each component in the GSHPb system in heating mode (Unit: kW). Component Compressor Ref-HX-Line Ref-Air HX/room Throttle valve Brine HX ground HX Total Refrigerant 0.7125 0.0163 0.2045 0.1095 0.3822 0.0 Heat ow in/out Lost work rate 0.4075 0.0163 4.8755 0.1095 4.3422 0.0 Work input rate 1.120 Heat transfer rate 0.1957 0.1217 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.0800 3.9600 1.120

1.120

Table VI. Exergy balances of each component in the GSHPb system in cooling mode (Unit: kW). Component Compressor Ref-HX-Line Ref-Air HX/room Throttle valve Brine HX/ ground HX Total Refrigerant 0.7276 0.0067 0.3075 0.1012 0.3122 0.0 Heat ow in/out Lost work rate 0.3335 0.0067 5.6929 0.1012 6.1343 0.0 Work input rate 1.0611 Heat transfer rate 0.1430 0.0760 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.3854 6.4465 1.0611

1.0611

Table VII. Initial investments, annualized costs and corresponding monetary ow rates of each component in GSHPa system. Component Compressor Condenser and throttle valve Evaporator Ground heat exchanger Fan-coil unit Total Initial investment ($) 344 516 516 989 1,935 4,300 Annualized cost ($/year) 23.58 35.36 35.36 67.78 132.62 294.70 Monetary ow rate ($/h) 0.00554 0.00832 0.00832 0.01595 0.03118 0.06930

Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

Table VIII. Initial investments, annualized costs and corresponding monetary ow rates of each component in GSHPb system. Component Compressor Ref-Air HX Brine HX Ground HX Total Initial investment ($) 504 2,520 1,890 1,386 6,300 Annualized cost ($/year) 34.7 173.5 130.1 95.4 433.7 Monetary f low rate ($/h) 0.00817 0.04082 0.03060 0.02243 0.10202

heat increases from $0.057/kWh to $0.077/kWh as the operating hours for a year decrease from 6100 to 2600 h. The unit cost of heat for the GSHPb system in heating mode, in which the COP of the heat pump is approximately 4.5, is approximately $0.051/kWh. The other exergy costs of material streams are Cr = $0.21/kWh and Cs = $0.035/ kWh. Meanwhile, the unit cost of heat for the GSHPb system in cooling mode, in which the COP of the heat pump is approximately 5.1, is approximately $0.047/kWh. In this mode, the unit costs of other material streams are Cr = $0.226/kWh and Cs = $0.0243/kWh.

Note that the unit cost of lost work due to entropy generation is negative in the case of heat removal from the room or in the cooling mode. This unit cost of heat addition or heat removal from the room should decrease if one uses such high values of COPs of the GSHP system. Using the obtained unit costs of exergies, lost work and heat, the corresponding cost ow rates for the GSHPa and GSHPb systems in heating and cooling mode are presented in Table IX, X and XI, respectively. It is noted that the cost ow rate can be obtained as the product of the unit cost and the corresponding exergy ow rate. A different sign convention for the cost ow rates related to the products and resources in such a heat delivery system was used. Positive values of the cost ow rate were used for input parameters or resources, while negative values were used for products. Certainly, this sign convention is different from the one used for power production systems such as gas turbine plants and combined cycle plants [25]. The lost cost due to entropy production in components is consumed cost; thus, it is negative. The fact that the sum of the cost ow rates of each component in the GSHPa system becomes zero, as can be conrmed in Table IX, shows that all of the cost balances for the components are satised. The last line indicates the cost

Table IX. Cost ow rates of various exergies and lost work of each component in the GSHPa system (Unit: $/h). Component Compressor Condenser/ throttle valve Evaporator/ground HX Fan-coil unit/room Total _r C 0.14702 0.10869 0.03833 0.0 _ wt C 0.10493 0.10493 0.0 0.21458 0.21458 _H C _s C 0.00379 0.01208 0.06260 0.07847 0.0 _W C 0.14527 _k Z 0.00554 0.00832 0.02427 0.03118 0.06931

0.14527

Table X. Cost ow rates of various exergies and lost work of each component in the GSHPb system in heating mode (Unit: $/h). Component Compressor Ref-HX line Ref-Air HX/room Throttle valve Brine HX/ Ground HX Total _r C 0.14996 0.00343 0.04304 0.02305 0.08044 0.0 _H C _s C 0.01431 0.00057 0.17140 0.00385 0.15267 0.0 _W C 0.15610 _k Z 0.00817 0.04082 0.05303 0.10202

0.25812

0.25812

0.15610

Table XI. Cost ow rates of various exergies and lost work of each component in the GSHPb system in cooling mode (Unit: $/h). Component Compressor Ref-HX line Ref-Air HX/room Throttle valve Brine HX/ Ground HX Total _r C 0.16459 0.00151 0.06950 0.02288 0.07070 0.0 _H C _s C 0.00815 0.00016 0.13830 0.00245 0.14906 0.0 _W C 0.14827 _k Z 0.00817 0.04082 0.05303 0.10202

0.25029

0.25029

0.14827

Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

balance for the overall system, given by Eq. (24). The sum of the cost ow rates for material streams, which is shown in each column of Table IX, becomes zero, except for the work input and heat output. Similar results and conclusions are obtained for the GSHPb system in heating mode. However, the lost cost due to entropy production in components in cooling mode turns out to be positive, while the lost cost at the boundary turns out to be negative as shown in Table XI. The total lost cost rather than the sign of the lost cost is important. The calculated total lost cost rate is $0.07847/h for the GSHPa system, and the total lost cost rate is $0.17140/h in heating mode and $0.14906/h in cooling mode for the GSHPb system. The lost cost rate of each component may be obtained by redistributing the total cost rate according to the entropy generation rate. The cost ow rates lost in the components are recovered completely in the form of thermal energy or heat at the boundary. The unit costs of exergies and negentropy such as Cr, Cwt and Cs act as internal parameters that determine the production cost [33] because the internal distributions of these parameters affect the cost formation process even though these parameters do not appear in the nal equation for determining the unit cost of product.

Cs CW _ C COP CRF _x E _ H i _ m P PW PWF(i,n) _ Q _ S Sn T To _ W _k Z

= unit cost of lost work due to the entropy generation ($/kWh) = unit cost of electricity ($/kWh) = monetary ow rate ($/h) = coefcient of performance = capital recovery factor = exergy rate (kW) = enthalpy ow rate (kW) = interest rate = mass ow rate (kg/s) = pressure (kPa) = amortization cost = present worth factor = heat transfer rate (kW) = entropy ow rate (kW/K) = salvage value ($) = temperature ( C) = ambient temperature ( C) = work production rate (kW) = capital cost ow rate of unit k ($/h)

Greek symbols b d fk  = coefcient of performance = operating hours = maintenance factor of unit k = thermal efciency

5. CONCLUSION
A thermoeconomic analysis of a GSHP system was performed using the modied structure analysis method. The unit cost of heat delivered to the room is calculated to be $0.063/kWh when the unit cost of electricity is $0.140/kWh, the COP of the GSHP system is 3.27 and the ratio of the capital cost ow rate of the components of the system to the input rate of electricity is 0.28. This unit cost of heat is cheaper than the unit cost heat of $0.080/kWh for a gas-red heater using natural gas with a unit cost $0.070/kWh in Korea. This unit cost of heat for GSHP system pertains to Korea and of course is valid under the tariff system on electricity and gas in Korea. Approximately 90% of the lost cost occurs in the ground heat exchanger and in the fan-coil unit, and 7.5% of the lost cost occurs in the condenser of the GSHPa system. In the GSHPb system, without water circulation in the fan-coil unit or the condenser, about 94.5% of the lost cost occurs in the ground heat exchanger and in the fan-coil unit. In both GSHP systems, 34% of the capital cost is lost in the compressor. The thermoeconomic analysis presented in this study may be applied to any refrigeration systems.

Subscripts a air boun comp con cv evap fc H gh k r s soil W wa wt = air stream = air stream = system boundary = compressor = condenser = control volume = evaporator = fan-coil unit = heat = geothermal heat exchanger = kth component = refrigerant stream = entropy ground = work or electricity = water/anti-freezer stream = water stream

NOMENCLATURE
Ci Ce CH Co = = = = initial investment cost ($) unit cost of exergy ($/kWh) unit cost of heat ($/kWh) unit cost of fuel ($/kWh)

Superscripts a CHE H r = = = = air stream chemical exergy heat refrigerant stream

Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

wa wt

= water/anti-freezer stream = water stream

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by Electric Power Public Tasks Evaluation & Planning Center of Korea in 2012.

REFERENCES
1. De Swardt CA, Meyer JP. A performance comparison between an air-source and a ground-source reversible heat pump. International Journal of Energy Research 2001; 25:899910. 2. Lund JW. Direct-use of geothermal energy in the USA. Applied Energy 2003; 74:3342. 3. Hepbasli A, Ozgener L. Development of geothermal energy utilization in Turkey: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2004; 8:433460. 4. Guzovic Z, Loncar D, Ferdelji N. Possibilities of electricity generation in the republic of Croatia by means of geothermal energy. Energy 2010; 38(8):34293240. 5. Kim SK, Bae GO, Lee KK, Song YH. Field-scale evaluation of the design of borehole heat exchangers for the use of shallow geothermal energy. Energy 2010; 35(2):491500. 6. Zheng G, Li F, Tian Z, Zhu N, Li Q, Zhu H. Operation strategy analysis of a geothermal step utilization heating system. Energy 2012; 44:458468. 7. Omer AM. Ground-source heat pumps systems and applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2008; 12:344371. 8. Lee J-Y. Current status of ground source heat pumps in Korea. Renewable and Sustainable Energy reviews Renew 2009; 13:15601568. 9. Hepbasli A, Akdemir O. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground source (geothermal) heat pump system. Energy Conversion and Management 2004; 45:737753. 10. Hepbasli A. Thermodynamic analysis of a groundsource heat pump system for district heating. International Journal of Energy Research 2005; 29:671687. 11. Ozgener L, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. Exergy analysis of two geothermal district heating systems for building applications. Energy Conversion and Management 2007; 48:11851192. 12. Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M, Pihtili K. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground coupled heat pump system with two horizontal ground heat exchangers. Building and Environment 2007; 42:36063615.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

13. Fan R, Jiang Y, Yao Y, Ma Z. Theoretical study on the performance of an integrated ground-source heat pump system in a whole year. Energy 2008; 33:16711679. 14. Bi Y, Wang X, Liu Y, Zhang H, Chen L. Comprehensive exergy analysis of a ground-source heat pump system for both building heating and cooling mode. Applied Energy 2009; 86:25602565. 15. Ally MR, Munk JD, Maxter VD, Gehl AC. Exergy analysis and operational efciency of a horizontal ground-source heat pump system operated in a lowenergy test house under simulated occupance conditions. International Journal of Refrigeration 2012; 35:10921103. 16. Hamada H, Saitoh H, Nakamura M, Kubota H, Ochifuji K. Field performance of an energy pile for space heating. Energy and Buildings 2007; 39:517524. 17. Michopoulos A, Bozis D, Kikidis P, Papakostas K, Kyriakis NA. Three-years operation experience of a ground source heat pump system in Northern Greece. Energy and Buildings 2007; 39:328334. 18. Chung JT, Choi JM. Design and performance study of the ground-heat pump system with an operating parameter. Renewable Energy 2012; 42:118124. 19. Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. Technoeconomic appraisal of a ground source heat pump system for a heating season in eastern Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management 2006; 47:12811297. 20. Ozgener O, Hepbasli A, Ozgener L. A parametric study on the exergoeconomic assement of a vertical ground-coupled (geothermal) heat pump system. Building and Environment 2007; 42:15031509. 21. Oktay Z, Dincer I. Exergoeconomic analysis of the Gonen geothermal district heating system for buildings. Energy and Buildings 2009; 41:154163. 22. Hepbasli A. A review on energetic, exergetic and exergoeconomic aspects of geothermal district heating systems (GDHSs). Energy Conversion and Management 2010; 51:20412061. 23. Kim S, Oh S, Kwon Y, Kwak H. Exergoeconomic analysis of thermal systems. Energy 1998; 23:393406. 24. Oh S, Pang H, Kim S, Kwak H. Exergy analysis for a gas-turbine cogeneration system. Journal of Engineering Gas Turbines and Power 1996; 118:782791. 25. Kwak H, Kim DJ, Jeon JS. Exergetic and thermoeconomic analyses of power plants. Energy 2003; 28:343360. 26. Lozano MA, Varelo A. Theory of the exergetic cost. Energy 1993; 18:939960. 27. Torres C, Serra L, Valero A, Lozano MA. Theories of system optimization. In Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division, x, Bittle RR,

Thermoeconomic analysis of GSHPs

H.-Y. Kwak et al.

Herold K, Duncan AB, Nuter DW, Fiszon J, Oneal D, Garimella S, Prasad BG (ed.). Americal Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York; 1996: 393406. 28. Kim DJ, Kim JH, Barry KF, Kwak H. Thermoeconomic analysis of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors with steam methane reforming for hydrogen production. Nuclear Technology 2011; 176:337351. 29. Moran J. Availability Analysis: A Guide to Efcient Energy Use. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1982.

30. Oh SD, Kim KY, Oh SB, Kwak H. Optimal operation of a 1-kW PEMFC-based CHP system for residential applications. Applied Energy 2012; 95:93101. 31. Bejan A. Entropy Generation Minimization. CRC Press: NY, 1996. 32. Bejan A. Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics. Wiley: NY, 1996. 33. Kwak H, Byun GT, Kwon YH, Yang H. Cost structure of CGAM cogeneration system. International Journal of Energy Research 2004; 28:11451158.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2013) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er